President Teddy Roosevelt formed the NCAA in 1906 in order to implement needed safety measures in the sport of college football.
At that time, it was impermissible to recruit individuals on the basis of athletic ability, much less to offer athletic scholarships.
Also, as with technology transfer, criticism of payment of college athletes focuses on the alleged inconsistency of such payment with a university’s academic mission.
Therefore, ISLE’s Chairman (Ron Katz, a sports and intellectual property lawyer who works in the technology licensing field), Vice-Chairman (Issac Vaughn, a technology lawyer and former varsity college quarterback) and Executive Director (Mike Gilleran, who was Commissioner of the West Coast Conference for 24 years) decided to co-author a follow-up to David Drummond’s paper in the format of the Nine Points.
As the New York Times recently stated about workers’ compensation for college athletes, the nationally televised, dramatic injury of Kevin Ware, a University of Louisville basketball player, has “…inflamed the debate about the treatment and care of unpaid college athletes who help generate hundreds of millions of dollars for their universities” The limits to what an athlete could receive for participation in college sports were appropriate in 1906 and arguably through 1984, when the U. The institutions reaping significant television revenue and BCS (Bowl Championship Series) revenue could now devise a process of compensation to their athletes that comports with traditional American notions of fairness in the marketplace, just as they have adjusted to comply with the gender equity provisions of Title IX, which was implemented in 1972.
The process of complying with Title IX has occurred despite the fact that it presented a financial challenge for many institutions, particularly those without significant television revenue streams.Athletic scholarships, however, have represented a form of pay-for-play that has avoided unionization, workers’ compensation and wages for college athletes.Although this scholarshiponly situation may have made sense in the 1950s, when college athletics generated relatively little revenue and required much less effort from athletes than is required today, it makes sense to re-examine this subject in light of the significant revenues generated today and the year-round efforts currently required of athletes. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, but those limits raise issues today for many institutions.Most of these are universities or colleges that are also members of the NCAA.The Nine Points approach seemed worth following up, particularly because of ISLE’s location in Silicon Valley, where much technology licensing occurs.His remarks, which are available at the link in the paragraph above, suggested that similar issues have been successfully addressed by universities that license technology created by students.His own company, Google, started with such licenses from Stanford University’s Office of Technology Licensing, licenses for which student inventors received payment.However, once the NCAA could no longer limit its members from maximizing their television revenues, those revenues increased exponentially and changed the landscape of college sports.Justice Byron White, who was a college football All-American, dissented in the Board of Regents case and warned of problems from vastly increased revenues flowing to college sports as a result of the Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA could no longer limit football TV revenues: By mitigating what appears to be a clear failure of the free market to serve the ends and goals of higher education, the NCAA ensures the continued availability of a unique and valuable product, the very existence of which might well be threatened by unbridled competition in the economic sphere.Widely divergent views on this controversial subject were voiced at the Symposium, from op-ed columnist Joe Nocera of the New York Times (a vociferous critic of NCAA policies) to Wallace Renfro (an NCAA Senior Vice President responsible for NCAA policies), and all points in-between.There was a particular focus on the issue of whether college athletes should be paid.